The joy of every teacher is to see their students excel in all activities, and; therefore, teachers have devised methods of achieving the educational outcomes. Among the teachers who have experienced it all are those charged with teaching foreign languages, because of the barriers of communication they encounter (Pishghadam & Mirzaee, 2008). As we all know, the basic foundation of learning is communication. It is also prima facie that language is best learnt in the formative stages of human beings, and any attempt to teach a different language later in life is posed with difficulties. Nonetheless, to imagine it impossible for adults to be trained a second language would be tantamount as making the untenable proposition that the human mind is un-trainable or un-teachable. Teachers who are charged with teaching second language go against all odds to ensure the learner benefits as much as possible and develops competency in both spoken and written language (Kumaravadivelu, 2012; Harmer, 2008). Such is the ordeal of teacher who teaches students English as a second language (Harper & de Jong, 2009). Therefore, the most appropriate question would be to analyze the necessary measure or methods that teachers of English as a second language use to help the students acquire a second language.

Teaching methodologies applicable when teaching student English as a second language have been developed and revised a million and one times over the past century. These approaches are developed as new knowledge emerges concerning how students learn. Various linguists and scholars have developed models they consider most appropriate to apply in teaching languages, or English as a second language (Pishghadam & Mirzaee, 2008). This essay is a description of various types of teaching methodologies or approaches that are applied by teachers of English as Second Language to achieve the educational outcome. In the essay, I will discuss the methodologies, comparing and contrasting them. I will then narrow down to one method that I consider most appropriate to use and conclude by recommending the method to other teachers of English as a second language.

There are various methodologies or approaches used in language teaching that have evolved over time. Among the common approaches applied in teaching student English as a second language includes grammar translation, audio-lingual, communicative approach, natural method, total physical response and the direct method (Byram & Hu, 2013). All these methods were developed at different times and differ substantially in model and approach emphasized in them. The following is an in-depth discussion of some of the methods.

Total Physical Response (TPR)

This method of teaching languages was first developed by behavioral psychologists who believed that learning is better accomplished when the student is involved in both physical and mental activities (Ariza, 2002). Total physical approach, therefore, involves the student in the learning process. Unlike in other systems, the teacher gives commands that the student is expected to follow. For instance, the teacher may ask the student to stand up, sit down, pick a pen, and walk some distance or any relevant question. Once a student has mastered the command, they then practice giving the commands.

Total Physical response approach is best suited for students in the silent stage of learning language where they cannot communicate. By involving a student through commands, the teachers boost the ego of the student since they feel appreciated and involved in the learning process. However, this method is so basic and is mostly indoor. That is; the activities are taken within the confines of the classroom. With time, however, the teacher can introduce the student to the outside environment by using manipulative pictures and images. In addition, the commands become complex as learning progresses, and the student develops an understanding of comprehension.

Another method of teaching language using the TPR approach is through sequential comprehension. The sequence is also referred to as Gouin series. For instance, the teacher may give a sequence of going to class and give the sequence of activities from waking up to the time the student is ready to go to school. The Gouin series can either be short or long, depending with the learning outcome the teacher intends. Just like in simple commands, the teacher may model the series and the student pantomime. The teacher may then leave the students to practice once he or she is convinced the students have understood the comprehension (Ariza, 2002).

The Gouin series of teaching TPR has various advantages. According to Knop in Curtain and Dhalberg (2004) as cited in Pishghadam and Mirzaee (2008), Gouin series links language to actions or visuals facilitating faster learning. In addition, it is appropriate for teaching cultural activities as it teaches physical behavior and verbs that in most instances are cultural based. Using a series, the student also benefits from better enhancement of their memory. It is important to remember that TPR approach does not only involve comprehension. Through the Gouin series, the students benefit from both writing and speaking skills since comprehension is followed by writing (Ferris, 2010).

Natural Approach

The natural approach of teaching English as a second language is based on the premise that language should be learned naturally just like native children do (McLaughlin, 2013). The main objective of the natural approach is to develop communicative competency immediately. Therefore, when using the natural approach, learning activities should emphasize communication skills rather than the grammatical aspects of the language. The method was developed by Tracy (1982) based on the Krashen Monitor Model.

According to Tracy (1982) and Krashen (1977), when teaching language, the emphasis should on vocabulary acquisition rather than the language form. The approach, therefore, embraces listening and speaking skills in an attempt to develop the communicative skills of the intended language. Class activities should, therefore, not focus on teaching language mechanic, which, according to the earlier writings of Tracy should be preserved for out of class activities. However, in his later writings (1991), Tracy seemed to amend his stand by highlighting that it was important to include some language forms in the class instruction.

In addition, Tracy advocates for natural development of language where correction of errors should be avoided. According to his 1977 work, error correction develops a negative attitude that affects the learning process. The speech errors should, therefore, be ignored when teaching English a second language to avoid demotivating the students. Again, this position is a reflection of the Krashen’s filter hypothesis which suggests that error correction is an embarrassing situation which raises the students affective filter and interrupts the language acquisition process.

As earlier discussed, the natural approach follows the native order of language development (McLaughlin, 2013). In the silent stage, the student is encouraged to respond in their native language as Tracy and Krashen believed such response is a demonstration of comprehension. The approach also emphasizes the use of TPR approach where students’ learning process develops from simple command to more complex comprehensions. It is imperative, therefore, for the instructor to use comprehensible inputs as much as possible. Such inputs include, use of visuals as pictures, charts or graphs, gestures, etc. (Derwing & Munro, 2005).

The communicative approach model

The communicative approach to teaching and learning is based on three theoretical premises: the communication principle, the task principle and the meaningfulness principle (Brumfit & Johnson, 1979). The objective of a communicative approach is to develop communication competency in the student by enabling the second language learner develop the ability to use the language appropriately in different social situations (Ariza, 2002). The communication principle posits that, activities that encourage communication improves language acquisition. The task principle posits that task that involves the use of language and student engagement in the real world task improves the learning of the language while the meaningfulness principles posit that students should be involved in authentic activities that promote the authentic use and interpretation of language.

Furthermore, it is imperative to create an information gap between speakers when using the communicative approach. This gap necessitates interaction between individuals, which, is necessary for learning purposes. Unlike other models, in the communicative approach, a task cannot be completed individually (Cook, 2013). A Partnership is necessary to achieve the educational outcome. The teacher, therefore, should organize the curriculum in such a way that the students learn in groups. The classroom activities may include interactive games, sharing information, need for impromptu responses and social interactions. In addition, the teacher should provide authentic materials such as newspaper for the student to enable them find learning meaningful (Brumfit & Johnson, 1979).

Sauvignon (1983, 1997 and 2002) as cited in Harmer, (2008), suggests that a communicative approach should include use of language art. The students should analyze the language form, use language for a purpose e.g., content based and immersion, personalized language use and a theatre play such a role plays in the learning process. According to him, such activities expose the student to real life encounters.

Communicative approach is, therefore, basically learning by doing (Brumfit & Johnson, 1979). Language acquisition takes place by involving the student in meaning use of the English language as early as possible in the learning process. Learning is fostered by input that is comprehensible (Shastri, 2010). The students, therefore, cooperates in the language learning process. The most fundamental principle in language acquisition and cooperative learning is for the student to be understood. Secondly, language acquisition is faster in communicative approaches because teams work activities provides the student with the necessary redundancy to enable him or her move from the short term comprehension of language to a long term acquisition of the intended language (Buck & Wightwick, 2013). This approach is close to the immersion program practiced in Canadian French schools where the French students study in the same classes with native English speakers. Since these students have little interaction with French speakers other than their teachers, they slowly learn the L2 language (English and develop competency in English closer to their native counterparts (Ariza, 2002).

Comparison between the teaching approaches

In TPR, the teachers engage students actively to acquire language by responding nonverbally (Physically) to commands. It, therefore, suffices as an effective method to employ when the L2 language students are still in the early stages or silent stage of language acquisition. Again the method allows teachers to ascertain the comprehension ability of the students long before they can respond verbally to the commands (Ariza, 2002). The TPR method therefore lays much emphasis on the student’s ability to comprehend language rather than oral proficiency.

The natural approach, on the other side is based on the Krashen’s monitor model and emphasizes proficiency in spoken language (Ariza, 2002). In addition, the method discourages the teaching of students the grammatical aspects of the English language. However, natural approach borrows a lot from the TPR approach, encouraging progressive teaching of the English from simple comprehension to more complex comprehensions (Nunan, & Carter, 2001).

On the other side, the communicative approach differs from both the natural approach and total Physical Response methods of teaching L2 students in that it emphasizes meaningful communication by teaching students how to develop competency in both written and spoken language (Chang, 2011). The communicative approach involves students in varied activities in a bid to develop an authentic understanding of the English language. Unlike TPR, the activities in communicative approach methods are derived from real life situation like reading the newspapers (Shastri, 2010). Moreover, the communicative approach divides the students into communicative groups that not only study a language, but analyze the language form (Ariza, 2002). Therefore, the students develop more holistically in terms of both written and spoken language. In addition, the communicative approach thrives on creating an information gap so as to encourage the students to learn meaningful communication (Brumfit & Johnson, 1979). The students, therefore, develop language skills applicable in different social situations.

From the above description I believe the communicative approach is more appropriate for teaching the students English as a second language. It is prima facie that the goal of any teacher, school or society is to churn out students who can communicate proficiently in both written and spoken language (Peregoy, Boyle, & Phillabaum, 2007). Secondly, language literacy encompasses not only fluent speaking of a given language, but also competency in writing the language. It is therefore imperative that students learn the rules of writing, grammar or mechanics used in a given language.

Besides, communicative approach emerges as a strong teaching method because it encourages social interaction. Instead of students relying fully on the teacher, the communicative approach involves the students in the learning process through the communicative groups. Such groups not only serve as a vehicle for education advancement, but provide the students with an opportunity to grow in their social life (Shastri, 2010). No one can deny the fact that in a society where our cultural backgrounds differ, the immersion if students from different cultural backgrounds into on class provide a perfect opportunity where students learn and appreciate other cultural background creating an atmosphere of cultural tolerance among the students (de Segovia & Hardison, 2009).

All the same, the best teaching approach should be a blend of the various teaching methods (Far, 2008). It’s the prerogative of the instructor to evaluate the students’ level and choose the most appropriate method for the prevailing circumstances (Hall, & Hewings, 2013).

CLICK BUTTON TO ORDER NOW